Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Friday, May 16, 2014

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly
call The Kimberlin Saga®. If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not
everyone reads my blog. The short
version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over two years, his worst
conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime. I recognize that this might sound like an
incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in
other words, you don’t have to believe my word.
You only have to believe your eyes.
And more recently when his wife came to us claiming that this convicted
terrorist had threatened her harm, we tried to help her leave her, and for
that, he is suing myself, John Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar for
helping his wife and he is suing Hoge, McCain, Akbar, DB Capital Strategies,
Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe III, Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Mandy
Nagy, Lee Stranahan, Erick Erickson, Breitbart.com, the Blaze, Mercury Radio
Arts, Red State, the National Bloggers Club, and Simon and Shuster alleging that we are all in
organized crime for reporting factually about the spate of SWATtings committed
against myself, Frey and Erickson. So,
if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

So you might
have heard it on my twitter, or seen it over at Hogewash but Brett
Kimberlin’s request to file a motion for sanctions has been denied.

You can read
the entire letter order here, after the break (so quick, get the
popcorn!). And bluntly, if you don’t
know what is going on, I suggest you read this
post as background which discusses some of the law of Rule 11 motions for
sanctions. So, see you after the break!

So a few
thoughts… First, it is “without
prejudice” which means that Brett can, in theory, file it again. We’ll see how reasonable that looks as an
option when the judge rules on Twitchy’s motion for sanctions.

And there are
hints in the order that suggests a few things behind the scenes. For instance, let’s unpack this line a little
bit:

It
appears that Kimberlin contends that ... Twitchy’s filings intended “to present
a false narrative to this Court,” but he does not allege that the facts in
Twitchy’s filings, or the state court transcript on which they purport to rely,
were fabricated or false.

There are
several things to note, here. First,
Brett’s request said nothing about a transcript. So the only way Judge Grimm could know that
there is a transcript—let alone one from the state court—is if he had read
Twitchy’s filing, or perhaps Brett’s response, or skimmed them anyway.

Second, he
seems to be taking it as an admission that the facts Twitchy has alleged are true, and that the transcript is
authentic—i.e. not fabricated. So it’s a
false narrative without any actual, you know, falsehoods. Brett did not help himself by showing the
judge how saying the truth amounts, in Brett’s mind, to a false narrative.

Also we can
see that the judge notes Brett’s objection that John Hoge published his
incompetent Rule 11 motion. But then
Judge Grimm’s denial doesn’t even address that issue. He says “[s]hould it become apparent that
Twitchy has acted improperly in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure” Brett can file a motion, then.
But how could it possibly be apparent that John and Mr. Smith are
engaged in that horrid “extrajudicial communications attacking a party” (to
quote from Brett’s request) based on those prior papers? The answer is, they can’t but the judge
thinks this is such a non-issue that he isn’t going to hear it.

But that line
I just quoted from the order contains another nugget, when you look at the
whole sentence:

Should
it become apparent that Twitchy has acted improperly in violation of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there will be ample opportunity to explore
that possibility after the substantive issues in this case are resolved on
their merits.

That last
phrase would seem to be out of place. Isn’t
the right to time to consider that when the motion for sanctions is resolved,
not the entire case? I mean suppose
Judge Grimm looked at Smith’s motion and decided it was improper? Then the time to decide the issue of
sanctions would be right now while
the issue is still fresh, not after the case is over which could be months from
now, if not more than a year...

...unless the
case is almost over, that is. In other
words, I think Grimm may have let slip that the case is about to be over. Indeed, it would not shock me if it turned
out that Grimm was taking home a pile of motions this weekend, to figure out 1)
whether to allow Brett to amend the complaint, and 2) if he is not allowed to
amend it, whether the prior complaints were sufficient as a matter of law to
survive a motion to dismiss. And the two
inquiries are actually closely tied together, because as you have seen, one of
the reasons why a motion to amend can be denied is if it is futile to do
so. One of the reasons why it can be
futile is if the proposed amendment doesn’t solve the problems of the original
complaint. And that invites the court to
say, “if I grant this motion to amend, will I just be dismissing the amended
complaint?”

Indeed, it
wouldn’t surprise me if he has already decided it needed to be dismissed and he
just writing the opinion.

Or… maybe the
judge just meant to say “after the substantive issues regarding Twitchy’s motion for sanctions are resolved on their
merits” and it came out wrong. I don’t
say that to insult the judge or whoever did the actual writing, but we are all
human and every now and then the completely wrong thing comes out of our mouths
or onto our computer screens. That is
the danger with reading tea leaves: you might be getting a false signal, as it
were. Still there is reason for cautious
optimism.

It also
answers another question for me. I had
been thinking of filing my own motion for sanctions against Brett, especially
now that he has made it clear that he knows what his duties under Rule 11
are. I mean given what he wrote to Mr.
Smith, he can’t do the “I’m just an ignorant pro-se” routine. He knows what the law required him to
do. He knew he couldn’t lie. He knew he had to be reasonably competent in
the law. He just didn’t do those things.

But I think I
know now that if I asked the court for permission to file my Rule 11 sanctions
motion, what the answer would be: “not yet.
Wait until the case is over.”

And if my tea
leaf reading is correct, that day is coming soon. Pray for justice, my friends, and always be
happy warriors.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted
terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame
me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you
read starting here,
you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video
evidence. If you would like to help in
the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on
the right. And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing,
mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel:
A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.
And you can read a little more about my
novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused
some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice
I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice
system. I do not want to see vigilante
violence against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the
particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.

And for that
matter, don’t go on his property. Don’t
sneak around and try to photograph him.
Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision. Your behavior could quickly cross the line
into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not
contact his organizations, either. And
most of all, leave his family alone.

The only
exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course
nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any
stories you might report. And even then
if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request. That this is a key element in making out a
harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you
refuse.

And let me say
something else. In my heart of hearts, I
don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.

About Me

Just a regular, sort of cranky moderately conservative lawyer, living in the greater Washington, D.C. and ruminating on law, life and the local spectator sport known as politics.
Btw, if you want to email me, write to edmd5.20.10 [at] gmail.com. I assume by now you understand that you are supposed to use one of those @ symbols for "[at]."